Stallion Cornell's Moist Blog
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
I submitted the following comment on Stallion's post:
"It was a great idea. And it didn't work." [The "It" here is the Mormon's United Order that failed.]
No, it wasn't a great idea and that's why it didn't work. It wasn't a great idea, because it was centralized rather than truly from the bottom up and then from the top down also (level), the only right alternative that you conveniently overlooked. As for people in the church deciding to keep their own so-called wealth, how could they remain in the church if Jesus calls for the Church to share all? The individuals were not "the Church." The church was top down. It was central planning only if the characterization is accurate here in this post. That's not in the spirit of the least being the first. It's antichrist.
When the people are the Church (members are the Church) and they decide by consensus agreeing to abide by the decision of the whole (be one) guided by the divine law as spoken by Jesus, that's the spirit that doesn't fail. Starting off with something else (falsehood) dooms it to failure.
Also, according to the things cited about the "United Order," ("preserved a measure of private property ownership"), their hearts were not entirely in it from the start.
Stallion Cornell, you wrote, "Communitarian living is the divine ideal, but it only works when governed by divine principles. When a perfect person is the one who decides how resources are distributed without bias or self-interest, and everyone is in the order voluntarily and participating wholeheartedly, than a United Order works perfectly." You see here that you are assuming a perfect person (one person) rather than the whole community doing what they did in the first generation of Christians. None took excessively. Each looked out for all, the one, the whole. When you get the Church together, they ask themselves, what's best for each and all. Who among them then wants what is selfish? None does.
What happened to James and the others? James was martyred. He was martyred by those who sought to suppress the religion. Is that failure on the part of the religion, or is it failure on the part of the murderers? I say the murderers are the failures.
Now, here's the truth. Winston Churchill's observation is not analogous, because communism is working amongst the Hutterites for example. They've shown that it works and works very well. There are no Hutterite adults without when any Hutterite adult has enough. (I single out the adults, because I don't doubt for a minute that the Hutterite adults would all self-sacrifice for the children.) That's far closer to the Kingdom than U.S. capitalism. Others have shown that it works as well. There are many successful communes in the world. There are many successful religious orders. I have a long list of them on my site.
Finally, you are arguing against communism as if Soviet Russia was genuinely communist. It was not. The top lived in luxury and splendor. They were rich in mammon. Brezhnev had a foreign sports car collection that billionaires envied. If you are going to defeat the idea of real communism, you have to defeat the idea of Christ Jesus. Defeating militant Marxism-Leninism is not defeating the idea of communism. It is defeating the idea of a one-party, violent, totalitarian dictatorship of the proletariat that wasn't even that. It was a cover for the elitists at the top such as Stalin and Mao who didn't have a real communist bone in their bodies.
Your tactic is the straw man. You set up what is easily refuted and speak as if you've proven that Christians aren't called to live communistically when they most certainly are.
As for not having fear of reprisal from the government of the United States for speaking out against it, obviously you've never been clubbed or otherwise abused by the government for speaking out against it, peaceably speaking or not, advocating no violence or not. Obviously you are ignoring those in the United States who are calling for more and more curtailment of freedom of political speech, Newt Gingrich for instance being a prime example.
The U.S. has a long history of suppressing free political speech. It revs up fear and then uses the fabricated boogeyman as an excuse to clamp down on those who would speak out against capitalism for instance when those who speak out begin to convince others with sound reasoning, tight logic, and historically demonstrable and verifiable facts rather than just echoing false propaganda from think tanks funded by the plutocrats (corporatists, world bankers, usurers; the very moneychangers Jesus cleans from the worshipful house of God). When those speaking out start pointing to Jesus as the living example, then the self-authorized coercive ones really become nervous that the people might follow, just as the murdering Pharisees worried about Jesus.
Jesus is a communist. He is an extremist and radical. He is not right or left on the false ideological spectrum once craftily designed to be thought-terminating. It is being exposed however. You'd be wise to come down on the side of Jesus on this.
God bless all with the truth,